[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PREVENTING ANOTHER MH370: SETTING INTER-
NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR AIRLINE FLIGHT
TRACKING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC ASSETS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-7
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-102 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Sean McLaughlin, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
James Robertson, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Transportation and
Public Assets
Melissa Beaumont, Clerk
Subcommittee on Transportation & Public Assets
JOHN L. MICA Florida, Chairman
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois, Ranking
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR. Tennessee Member
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK DeSAULNIER, California
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin, Vice BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chair
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 25, 2015................................ 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Michael A. Lawson, American Ambassador, The U.S. Mission
of ICAO
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 10
The Hon. Christopher A. Hart, Acting Chairman, National
Transportation Safety Board
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Mr. Kevin Hiatt, Senior Vice President for Safety and Flight
Operations, International Air Transport Association
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 27
APPENDIX
Rep. David E. Price (NC-04) Statement............................ 48
Inmarsat statement for the record................................ 50
NTSB responses to Rep. David Price (NC-04) Questions for the
record......................................................... 55
IATA responses to Rep. David Price (NC-04) Questions for the
record......................................................... 60
ICAO responses to Rep. David Price (NC-04) Questions for the
record......................................................... 62
PREVENTING ANOTHER MH370: SETTING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR AIRLINE
FLIGHT TRACKING
----------
Wednesday, February 25, 2015,
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Assets,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, Duncan, Amash, Duckworth,
and DeSaulnier.
Also present: Representative Price.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I would like to call this hearing
of the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Assets,
Subcommittee of Government Oversight and Reform Committee, to
order.
Welcome, everyone, this morning. We are pleased to have
everyone with us, especially our ranking member. Congresswoman
Duckworth is with us for her first hearing. Congratulations to
her on arrival of her daughter and getting through her
maternity leave and rejoining us here. I know she has been back
a little while, but this is her first hearing with us, and I
was delighted to hear when she was selected to be the ranking
Democrat member on this important subcommittee and look forward
to working with her. In just a minute, too, I will recognize
her for an opening Statement, but we are very pleased to have
you. I think we will have a very productive 2 years working
together.
But, again, welcome, everyone. The title of today's hearing
is Preventing Another Malaysia Air 370: Setting International
Standards for Airline Flight Tracking.
The order of business today will be, we will start with
opening Statements, and usually the order is the chairman, the
ranking member, other members who wish to be heard. Today we
have sort of dueling hearings; there must be 10 of them going
on right now all at the same time, so we will have members who
may come and go or who want to be part of the hearing. We also
are joined by Congressman Jimmy Duncan, and I think Mr. Price
may be joining us, and we will have unanimous consent for those
joining us who aren't on the committee or the subcommittee to
participate at the appropriate time.
So, with that, after opening Statements, we will turn to
our panel of three witnesses and welcome them this morning. I
will introduce them, I will swear them in and hear their
testimony, and after we hear from all three, then we will go to
questions. So that will be the order of business today.
So, with that, my opening Statement. Let me begin.
At today's hearing we are going to look at recent work
between international and domestic entities to close the
tracking gap, as well as discuss future advancements in
technology that will result in real-time tracking that can
immediately alert authorities to any abnormalities during the
flight of a commercial passenger aircraft.
Let me say at the outset it is absolutely unacceptable that
today we are unable to locate or properly track a commercial
passenger aircraft. Today it is unacceptable that any passenger
aircraft with 239 people cannot be located in an accident that
occurred some time ago. So I believe that it is our
responsibility to ensure that no commercial aircraft with
passengers should be allowed to fly without a working and
operable aircraft tracking device, and today's hearing will
focus on where we are in that process.
There are great implications to the problem of not being
able to track aircraft even after an accident. But also now,
when I visited ICAO and met with some of their officials, one
of the concerns they expressed is the expansion of the
international conflict zone; to date, a couple years ago,
fairly limited in some of the Middle Eastern States. Now it is
greatly expanded over continents, over regions, and commercial
passenger aircraft are flying in these areas. We should be able
to know where they are.
We are going to address today the shoot-down of another
passenger aircraft. But if we don't take steps to know where an
aircraft is at all times and properly route them against
danger, not just know where they are when they are lost, there
will be consequences; and I predict that there will be
additional shoot-downs of passenger aircraft because we don't
have these systems in place.
A required and working global aeronautical distress and
safety system standard is long overdue. Last year, after
Malaysia Air 370, we had a hearing in the Transportation
Committee. A number of issues were brought up that we had to
address. One that I cited back then and brought attention to
the committee and the Congress was the need for action in
getting, again, tracking capability of passenger aircraft.
This, I might remind everyone, is 2015, and the technology
exists, the capability exists. What we are lacking is a
standard for all of these operating passenger aircrafts across
the globe.
I was very pleased to meet last year with Michael Lawson.
He is the United States Ambassador to ICAO. Upon our very first
meeting, we discussed this issue and he is with us here today.
Most folks don't know what ICAO is. I was explaining it to
staff. When I became chairman of aviation in 2001, I didn't
know what ICAO is, but ICAO is the primary and principal
international aviation organization responsible for setting
aviation standards, requirements, and protocols. That is for
all aircraft flying across the globe.
We have 191 nations who belong, and, if you visit their
headquarters in Montreal, I think it is bigger than the United
Nations operation in New York City. Every country sends
Ambassadors to ICAO representatives. They have a general
assembly and then they have different layers of governance, and
they set the standards for all aircraft.
We have with us today Congressman Duncan, and he, with Mr.
Price, has introduced U.S. legislation, and I have a copy of
their legislation, H.R. 772, which actually, having read it
just in the last day or so, it complies with the standards or
refers to the standards as set by ICAO to require certain
standards that the U.S. aircraft adopt; and we will turn to him
for a better explanation shortly. But even if we can't pass
this U.S. law without having the ICAO standards, American
passengers could be protected, say, domestically with a
domestic commercial flight if we passed it for the United
States. But once they get outside our borders, ICAO has the
primary responsibility for standard setting.
I have worked with IATA and met with their representatives,
a very responsive international transport association, and that
is an airline organization. They can set standards for their
airlines, but they don't set the global standards, and they can
require compliance of their membership. So that is why it is
important for ICAO to act.
Interestingly enough, you may not know this, but the United
States provides about 25 percent of the funding for ICAO, so we
have an important stake there. We have a great representative
who has been working with folks. And not too long ago, when I
traveled to Montreal, arranged a meeting with the president of
ICAO to express our concerns, on behalf of Congress, of
adopting that standard, moving that process forward.
If we sometimes think that Congress or the Senate is slow,
sometimes the international organizations, getting 191
countries to agree, that can also be a time consuming,
difficult process, but I can't say that we could have had
better representation than our Ambassador has given us to that
organization, or better cooperation.
And I want to, today, hear an update. There was a recent
meeting and I believe today we are going to have an
announcement on some of the standards being proposed that just
were released. We may hear more about the status of that. I
think it is in draft. And then the important thing is the
timeframe for implementation.
The fact is the technology does exist. The fact is the
technology is on most aircraft. What is lacking is a standard.
There is an opportunity, I think Mr. Duncan's bill provides for
it, for enhancing some of the capability of the technology.
I met with Mr. Hart, NTSB, and we will hear from them
shortly. They are working with the industry to try to come up
with a tracking device that is not only more reliable, but also
has a longer life and a better ability to track, and we will
hear the status of that.
The long-term solution is, again, switching from a radar
base to next generation air traffic control with global and GPS
tracking so we know where every aircraft is that has passengers
at every point on the Earth at all times, both for in the case
of an accident and then also keeping the passengers safe in
some of the zones I talked about that pose great risk.
So we will learn today the status of the adoption of these
international standards. We will look at the requirements for
potentially longer life tracking devices and better
technologies. We will hear from NTSB and others, the industry
also who have comments on standards should be set that are
reasonable and workable and implementable as soon as possible.
So Flight 370, although a tragedy with a loss of life of
239 individuals, from that horrible experience and still today
not being able to locate that aircraft or those victims, we
have a responsibility to move this process forward. Today there
are approximately 90,000 flights around the world. The FAA
estimates there are around 123,000 U.S. citizens boarding those
planes every day, so while we can control domestic traffic and
U.S. aircraft, it is important that international standard be
there. We are looking at not just protecting citizens around
the world, but our responsibility to U.S. citizens.
Right now the international standard is to check every 30
minutes when outside of radar. Of course, the long-term is next
generation air traffic control, but listen to this. At 35,000
feet, a Boeing 747 has a cruising speed of 570 miles per hour.
In 30 minutes, a plane can carry nearly 400 passengers, can
travel nearly 300 miles before anyone knows where it is. That
is not an acceptable standard today.
So today we are going to look at, finally, the work between
international, domestic entities, the industry, some of our
safety organizations, and we will hear where we are, where we
need to go, and how we need to get there.
So, with that lengthy opening Statement, you will find that
sometimes I use the chairman's prerogative, which I also always
extend to the minority. I have often told my staff that
whatever time the other side of the aisle needs, they are going
to get, even if it requires that we get Preparation H and sit
here forever. That is an inside joke.
Welcome, Ranking Member Duckworth. Congratulations, and
look forward to working with you. You are recognized.
Ms. Duckworth. And I thank the chairman. It is a joy to be
here and I was especially pleased to see that you were the
chairman of the committee, with your experience in
transportation issue.
So I get to have my first hearing back in Congress from
maternity leave on an issue near and dear to my heart, which is
airspace issue. I have flown as a pilot myself on four
different contingents; I have flown in Egypt, I have flown in
Guyana, Iceland, and, of course, the United States, and I found
airspace and the control of that airspace to be very different
in each of those areas depending on the sophistication of the
system, the capabilities of the host governments in that area.
So I again would like to thank the chairman for holding
this hearing today. The hearing is critically important to
determine what steps are being taken to improve the tracking of
commercial international flights to ensure that all flights can
be tracked in the event of an emergency.
With Malaysian Airlines Flight 370's disappearance after
almost a year of what was the most expensive search operation
in aviation history, the aircraft still has not been located,
and I find this event to be especially tragic and upsetting.
First, of course, our hearts, all of us, go out to the families
of the 239 people that lost their lives. Not only did they lose
a loved one, but they have been denied any level of closure
because the aircraft and even its remnants have yet to be
found. I can only imagine the pain these family members feel
and continue to suffer each and every day.
In addition to the disappearance of MH370, the weaknesses
of international flight tracking system has become very
visible. Again, as a pilot, as a frequent flier, Member of
Congress, O'Hare is my eastern border. I don't actually have
O'Hare Airport in my district. Well, I have the fence and the
grass where the geese that get in the flight path land and hang
out, but I don't have the gift shops or any of the revenue-
generating portions of O'Hare.
I find it unacceptable that in 2014 an aircraft can go
completely missing for such an extended period of time without
any answers or explanations. With all the technology available
to us, with GPS satellite phones, the public wants to know how
can this happen in 2014. Pilots understand it a little bit
better, but for the general public, they don't understand, and
these are people getting on airliners and entrusting that the
system will be safe to carry their loved ones to their
destination.
Today I hope to receive some answers. Our witnesses include
organizations that have been on the front lines of improving
flight tracking systems, as well as creating a unified system
for international flight tracking.
Now, I always called it ICAO, which is how we pronounce it
in the Army. Is it ICAO or is it ICAO?
Ambassador Lawson. ICAO.
Ms. Duckworth. ICAO. OK. See, we were saying it wrong in
the Army the whole time. Well, we were just a bunch of
helicopter pilots. What did we know?
So ICAO, the International Air Transport Association, the
NTSB have all been active participants in trying to find a
solution to this problem, and I really want to thank you for
the work you are doing. I look forward to fully examining this
issue at great lengths today.
I thank the chairman for his very kind and generous
remarks, and I continue to look forward to working with him to
monitor these issues in the future.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Now, again, I refer to his proposed legislation and one of
the experts in Congress on aviation, former chair of the
Aviation Subcommittee in the House, Mr. Duncan, the gentleman
from Tennessee. You are welcome.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling
this hearing, and thank you for your very supportive comments
about my legislation. As you mentioned, I did chair the
Aviation Subcommittee for 6 years, from 1995 to 2001, and then
you followed me in that position and, of course, later chaired
the full committee, and you always have had a great interest in
and concern about aviation issues, and certainly that is
evident here in your calling this early hearing in your
chairmanship of this subcommittee.
This is an issue that I have been interested in for a long
time. In 1999, under the chairmanship of Jim Hall, the NTSB
issued a safety recommendation calling for two sets of black
boxes on commercial aircraft, and I am pleased that former
Chairman Hall is here today. As late as the week before last, a
working group of the ICAO organization issued a recommendation
that deployable recording boxes be put on commercial aircraft
in the very near future, and that is exactly what my bill, H.R.
772, calls for as well, and certainly one of the lead witnesses
here today is our Ambassador to ICAO, Ambassador Lawson; and we
are pleased to have all the witnesses here.
My bill is entitled The SAFE Act, and it requires that
manufacturers install deployable recorders on all aircraft
ordered after January 2017, and these deployable recorders
would contain both voice and data information. They would
automatically eject from an airplane upon a crash and thus
could save untold millions of dollars in searching costs and
would certainly be a great step forward in trying to solve the
problems related to various aircraft crashes and so forth.
We are really way behind the times on this. I have a report
here that says deployable recorders have been used in military
and over water helicopter applications since the 1960's and are
currently available from several manufacturers. They combine
traditional FDR and CDR functions into one unit and are capable
of providing a comparable amount of flight data. So I think
that we are well past the time that this should have been done
and I am encouraged by all the support that is coming both here
nationally and internationally for my legislation.
Congressman Price, one of our most respected members, has
introduced companion legislation, H.R. 753, which goes right
along with the bill that I have introduced, and hopefully we
can get some progress in this Congress in that regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and for
allowing me to make these brief comments. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Amash, did you have an opening Statement?
Mr. Amash. I do not.
Mr. Mica. OK. Any other members?
Recognize Ms. Duckworth.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a Statement
from Congressman Price for the record and I would like to
submit it.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, it will be made part of the
record.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. We will leave the record open for a period of 10
legislative days for additional comments or questions to the
witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.
All right, if there are no further opening Statements at
this point, I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses.
We are very fortunate today to have with us the United States
Ambassador to the United States Mission of ICAO, Ambassador
Michael A. Lawson. We have the Honorable Christopher Hart. He
is the Acting Chair of the National Transportation Safety
Board. And we have Mr. Kevin Hiatt, and he is the Senior Vice
President for Safety and Flight Operations for the
International Air Transport Association.
Some of you have been before us before. If you haven't,
this is an oversight and investigative panel. We do swear in
our witnesses, so if you would stand, raise your right hand. Do
you solemnly swear or affirm that your testimony before this
subcommittee of Congress is the whole truth and nothing but the
truth?
[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
Mr. Mica. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Again, welcome to each of you. Be seated.
What we do, we don't have multiple panels and we don't have
a huge number of witnesses, so we can be flexible on the 5-
minute rule. We do want to hear your Statement. If you have
lengthy information or background that you want to submit to
the record, just a simple request to the chair and we will make
certain it is inserted in the record appropriately.
With that, let me welcome and again thank our Ambassador,
Ambassador Lawson, who has been great to work with on this
issue. We will hear his testimony today. Welcome, sir, and you
are recognized.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL A. LAWSON
Ambassador Lawson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Duckworth, and other
distinguished members of this subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify in front of this committee regarding
efforts to accelerate the establishment of international
standards relating to the tracking of commercial airliners over
oceanic areas in response to the recent loss of Malaysia Flight
370.
As U.S. Ambassador to the International Civil Aviation
Organization, this issue is one of my highest priorities.
International responses to complex challenges have historically
been frustratingly slow. However, in the aftermath of the MH370
tragedy, the international aviation community has responded
with an appropriate sense of urgency.
Weeks after the MH370 disappearance, ICAO convened a
special multi-disciplinary meeting to study issues related to
global airline flight tracking. The meeting concluded that
there was a need to accelerating the existing time table to
track aircraft effectively and globally, and that the solution
would have to involve more than the introduction of technology.
A comprehensive approach that involves the coordination of
airline industry practices, air traffic control procedures,
search and rescue capabilities, and accident investigation
processes would be required.
In our following months, an industry-led task force was
formed to focus on what airlines could do to support flight
tracking in the near-term while the ICAO working group
developed an overarching concept of operations.
The ICAO concept broke the tracking problem down into four
items: normal tracking, abnormal tracking, distress tracking,
and retrieval of accident data. These two groups, industry and
ICAO, worked to harmonize their proposals and, on February 3d,
presented their recommendations to a high level safety
conference attended by more than 850 delegates from over 120
States. The ICAO conference endorsed the operational concept.
I would like to call your attention to the progress made in
two key areas, normal aircraft tracking and retrieval of
accident data.
Normal aircraft tracking. An international standard for
normal aircraft tracking has progressed rapidly. The normal
tracking standard seems basic, but it will create the
foundation upon which additional requirements will be built.
ICAO's proposed normal tracking standard clearly assigns
responsibility for tracking to the airline. It requires that
every operator track the location of the aircraft every 15
minutes when the aircraft are flying over oceanic airspace
unless air traffic control is providing surveillance, but also
requires that airlines develop procedures to coordinate with
air traffic control facilities in the event a position report
is missed.
We believe that these basic procedures would significantly
improve search and rescue responses in the event another
tragedy were to occur.
The standards proposed by ICAO did not contain specific
tracking technologies. Through collaboration with industry, an
array of current and emerging technologies capable of meeting
the proposed normal tracking standard have been identified.
ICAO will be distributing their proposal to member States for
review this week. ICAO will incorporate comments received from
the States and offer the standard for adoption by the ICAO
Council during November of this year. The planned global
applicability date is November 2016. A copy of ICAO's letter
has been provided for the record.
For the United States, FAA regulations already require some
level of centralized tracking, and U.S. airlines have fairly
sophisticated operational control centers capable of meeting
this challenge. However, other regions of the world may find
this standard more challenging. For this reason, ICAO will
conduct a normal aircraft tracking initiative in Asia later
this year. The initiative is designed to assist in identifying
challenges with technology and procedures, and help the
industry gain operational experience. The FAA will be providing
assistance and guidance and advice, and we expect U.S. airlines
will participate.
With respect to the retrieval of accident data, the
proposed standards to address the recovery of cockpit voice and
flight data recorders are also progressing rapidly. The
standards will target the recovery of data following an
accident. One possible method to facilitate recovery of post-
accident data would be to mandate deployable flight recorders.
However, during the recent high-level safety conference,
industry and regulators from around the world urged ICAO to
draft performance-based standards that would leave the door
open to other emerging technologies such as streaming data,
which may be easier and possibly quicker to implement.
ICAO has drafted the initial performance-based standards
for accident data recovery. The standards will likely require
changes or additions to aircraft equipment, and for this reason
it may take several years to implement them. The standards will
also require the development of extensive guidance materials.
Depending on the technological solutions, the changes to
aircraft equipment would be phased in beginning in 2019 or
2021. The proposal is not scheduled for adoption by the ICAO
Council until March 2016.
Mr. Chairman, ICAO, with the support of the United States
and the international community, has responded quickly to the
challenge of global flight tracking. Standards that would
normally take years of deliberation have been developed in
months. The FAA and U.S. airlines are recognized leaders when
it comes to the issue of aircraft tracking and, as you know,
the FAA has, for years, provided assistance to other regions of
the world in their efforts to adapt their operations to
accommodate air traffic management, and now they are being
asked to assist with aircraft tracking. This is a great example
of America's global leadership that should be encouraged and
continued.
It is my hope that the United States will continue to apply
its substantial expertise toward the development and maturation
of global aircraft tracking standards, and that any new U.S.
regulations will be harmonized with the international standards
that emerge as a result of our collective efforts.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your concerns and
answering any questions you may have.
[Prepared Statement of Ambassador Lawson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you.
We will go to our next witness.
Before we do that, I see Mr. Price, the gentleman from
North Carolina, joining us, and I would ask unanimous consent
that he be permitted to participate in the panel, and he would
be recognized after other members.
Welcome, sir. Please take a seat, and you will be
recognized. Without objection, so ordered.
Now let me introduce and again thank also for his
hospitality Mr. Christopher Hart, the Acting NTSB Safety Board
Chair.
And if members and staff have not gone down to their
operations, I went down actually to look at some of the
retrieved equipment from the site of the Metro arcing incident
where one person was killed and they bring some of the parts
and debris to their lab downtown here. But I also got a chance
to visit upstairs several of the labs where they have airline
crash black boxes, the remains from different crashes, even a
bus tire in another lab, and the sophisticated equipment and
work that NTSB does in investigating a whole host of accidents.
If staff or members have not gone, please go down and see the
incredible job that they do.
But thank you for your hospitality. I know I was there and
some of our staff, but, again, on the work you do. So welcome,
Mr. Hart, and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER A. HART
Mr. Hart. Thank you, Chairman Mica. The pleasure was ours
to have you come and see what we do because we are proud of it
and we love to show it off.
Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Duckworth, and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to
testify today on behalf of the NTSB.
From the start of the Air Safety Board and the Civil
Aeronautics Act of 1938, Congress directed that the Board
``reduce accidents by conducting studies and investigations on
matters pertaining to safety and air navigation and the
prevention of accidents.''
In the history of aviation, recorders and the wealth of
data they provide are the technology that has most helped the
NTSB and our international counterparts achieve this objective
of preventing accidents and improving safety. Without them, we
are unable to determine what really happened, as was the case
during the 2-years that the flight data recorder and the
cockpit voice recorder remained under water after the crash of
Air France Flight 447. Recorders significantly enhance our
ability to determine what happened, and from that to make
recommendations to prevent recurrences.
From the early days of the NTSB, we have recommended that
recorders be more robust because of the lessons learned in our
safety investigations, and today, more than 40 years later, we
are again asking for more improvements to recorder technology.
Last month we asked the FAA to require that commercial aircraft
operating more than 50 nautical miles from shore be equipped to
transmit their location within 6 nautical miles in the event of
a crash and to require that these aircraft be equipped with a
low-frequency location device that will transmit their
underwater location for 90 days. We also recommended a way to
recover data without requiring underwater retrieval and that
all of these requirements be harmonized internationally.
Also, accidents such as SilkAir and EgyptAir remind us that
seeing what is happening in the cockpit would help us know much
better the totality of what happened, so the NTSB also
recommended that cockpits have image recorders to capture that
information for 2 hours. These recommendations are not about
gotcha moments, they are about learning and improving safety.
Earlier this month I participated in the high-level safety
conference at ICAO that has been referred to previously with my
colleagues who are here today. At this meeting, the ICAO member
States considered a way forward to dealing with the issue of
tracking aircraft in real time. The tragic events over the last
year have focused the entire international aviation community
in developing new standards.
The conference proposed the development of performance-
based standards to improve tracking, locating, and data
recovery, as you have already heard, and similar to what the
NTSB proposed in our recent recommendations. The ICAO proposals
are a critical step toward the option of a performance-based
standard. More work needs to be done and the NTSB will continue
to provide its guidance and counsel as informed by our
investigation experience to our ICAO Ambassador as that process
moves forward.
The NTSB and its international counterparts have concluded
that in this day and age lost aircraft and lost data from those
aircraft should be a thing of the past.
Thank you for holding this hearing on this important topic
to advance aviation safety worldwide. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
[Prepared Statement of Mr. Hart follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
We will hear next from Kevin Hiatt. He is the Senior Vice
President for Safety and Flight Operations of IATA. Welcome,
sir. Thank you also for your past cooperation, and you are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN HIATT
Mr. Hiatt. Thank you, Chairman Mica. Chairman Mica, Ranking
Member Duckworth, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the 250-plus members of the International Air
Transport Association, IATA, on this very important issue of
aircraft tracking.
IATA's mission in the 70 years of its existence has been to
represent, lead, and serve the global air transport industry.
Our members account for 84 percent of global air traffic. IATA
and its member airlines are committed to maintaining a safe and
efficient international air transportation system. IATA member
airlines have an exemplary safety record, with 0.3 accidents
per one million flights in 2013. Aviation is safe and remains
safe because its culture is one of seeking continuous
improvement.
In 2003, IATA advanced global aviation safety with its
introduction of the IATA Operational Safety Audit, known as
IOSA, which is an internationally recognized and acceptable
evaluation system designed to assess the operational members
and management and control of systems and airlines. All IATA
members are IOSA registered and must remain registered to
maintain IATA membership.
From 2009 through 2013, the accident rate for airlines on
the IOSA registry was 2.5 times better than that for a non-IOSA
registered airline. As such, IOSA has become the global
standard, recognized well beyond IATA membership. As of October
2014, 154, or 38 percent, of the 402 airlines that are IOSA
registered were non-IATA members.
In 2014, commercial aviation experienced tragedies that
remind us that we cannot rest on our safety record and that we
must do all our best to anticipate the unanticipated, even if
the possibilities are deemed extremely remote. We are nearing
an infamous first anniversary of the unexplained loss of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, a State-of-the-art commercial
aircraft operating in radar-controlled airspace.
Soon after the disappearance of Flight 370, IATA brought
together partners from across the aviation industry, including
airlines, air navigation service providers, pilots,
manufacturers, the civil aviation organization, and many other
key stakeholders to undertake a critical review of current and
future aircraft tracking capabilities, and identify near-term
options to improve these capabilities.
Throughout the summer and fall of 2014, this task force
reviewed today's technologies, procedures, and best practices
in terms of aircraft tracking. The task force found that most
airlines track their fleets through a variety of means,
including the vast majority who track through air traffic
surveillance services, where they exist. We also verified that
there are existing technologies, services, and procedures that
can enhance aircraft tracking in the near-term and that a
performance-based approach must be employed. There is no one-
size-fits-all solution. Established procedures must be followed
and, where needed, improved to ensure clear, consistent, and
timely communications between air navigation service providers
and the airlines.
While the focus of the industry group was on the near-term,
it was recognized that emerging technologies will create new
capabilities in the global air navigation infrastructure,
including an improved ability to track aircraft.
The task force report was provided to ICAO in early
December. ICAO incorporated its findings into their Global
Aeronautical Distress Safety System document, known as GADSS.
GADSS is a consent of operation for routine, non-routine,
emergency, and search and rescue situations. While these
various stages are well defined in the GADSS document, IATA is
concerned with suggestions that our industry should implement
unnecessary solutions in the near-term that would be more
effectively addressed as more effective technology solutions
are implemented over the next years. For example, any
deployment of automatic deployable flight recorders would be
redundant for some airlines that implement real-time data
streaming.
On February 2d through the 5th, 2015, ICAO held a high-
level safety conference. The agenda from that conference
addressed several key areas, including aircraft tracking, risks
to commercial aviation in conflict zones, and sharing and
protection of safety information. ICAO member States concluded
that, one, international standards for aircraft tracking are
needed; and, two, that a performance-based approach was
appropriate when implementing these standards.
IATA, along with other key stakeholders, will participate
in an implementation initiative that will evaluate the
feasibility of these proposed standards and provide guidance to
both government and industry in terms of procedural gaps that
may exist. IATA called on ICAO and its member States to move
forward in such a way that does not result in premature,
redundant, or unnecessary regulation.
There are some who believe that new equipment is needed on
board air today to enhance aircraft tracking. IATA believes
that the immediate focus should remain on leveraging the
equipment already installed on aircraft. More importantly, IATA
believes that there is an urgent need to ensure adherence to
the existing, clearly defined roles and responsibilities of air
navigation service providers for airlines.
Airlines are responsible for safely and efficiently
carrying passengers. Air navigation service providers are
responsible for maintaining safe separation and monitoring
their airspace at all times. Furthermore, the air navigation
service provider is the controlling authority managing routine
and non-normal situations. As an example, an aircraft may
deviate off track for a number or reasons, such as weather
avoidance, vectoring for traffic, or for situations far more
serious. In all cases, this responsibility and resulting timely
action remains with the air navigation service provider. Air
navigation service providers are also responsible for
initiating alerts and search and rescue activities.
We believe that strict adherence to these roles and
responsibilities will advance aviation safety more effectively
and efficiently than layers of overly redundant mitigation. We
also underscore the importance of these roles and
responsibilities and procedural compliance not only throughout
the implementation initiative, but as we continue to work with
governments and other stakeholders to ensure the safety of
global aviation.
IATA and its member airlines recognize that commercial
aviation is not sustainable if the public does not have
confidence in the safety of the global air traffic system. The
credibility of our industry is at risk when a modern commercial
aircraft vanishes while under air traffic control and that, in
absence of the facts, speculation defines the accident.
What the airline industry will never allow is speculation
about it's No. 1 priority, the safety of its passengers and
crew. Airlines remain committed to ensuring the safe and
efficient operations of some 100,000 flights every day, and
IATA will remain a vocal leader and strong voice in taking
whatever steps are needed to honor this commitment.
Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Duckworth, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, on behalf of IATA, thank you again
for the opportunity to speak today.
[Prepared Statement of Mr. Hiatt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Thank you, and thank you to all of our witnesses
for their testimony. We will now turn to some questions.
First of all, Mr. Ambassador, I heard some timeframes cited
as to when ICAO would actually institute a standard. Now,
probably the most basic standard, and we just heard Mr. Hiatt
talk about a requirement--well, first of all, about 95 percent
of the aircraft already have equipment, that has a transponder
so we can identify where the aircraft is, or some type of
equipment where we have a transmitting device, is that correct?
Mr. Hiatt, is that correct?
Mr. Hiatt. Not for the exact number, but you are correct, a
vast majority having tracking equipment.
Mr. Mica. The vast majority. OK, so we have that. But the
most simple thing would be to have a requirement in place as
soon as possible that that be deployed, that that equipment be
deployed. I think on 370 it was not deployed; it was on the
aircraft, but not deployed. Is anyone aware of that, whether
370 had that equipment? I am sure it did; it was the most
modern.
Mr. Hiatt. MH370 was a Boeing 777, and it did have a
transponder on board.
Mr. Mica. OK, so we will go back to the Ambassador. My
initial question is, when will we have in place even the most
basic requirement that this equipment be deployed and kept
operational?
Ambassador Lawson. Certainly. Let me go back and talk a
little bit about what ICAO is trying to do and what the U.S.
mission is trying to support.
What we have put forth for discussion among the member
States is a performance-based standard.
Mr. Mica. Right.
Ambassador Lawson. We are not prescribing any particular
type of equipment. Why? Because, as you said, there are a lot
of different technologies that meet this requirement; not all
airlines have the same, but they basically have the ability to
track their airlines.
Mr. Mica. So if they have it, the question is making
certain they use it. We had an aircraft with 239 people that
had it, and it wasn't operational.
Ambassador Lawson. It is not that it wasn't operational. We
don't know. The problem is we really don't know what happened
with MH370.
Mr. Mica. Well, that is true.
Ambassador Lawson. But the fact of the matter is what we
believe is that it is not just the technology that we have to
focus on, it is the technology and the coordination of the
industry and the airlines and the air traffic control
procedures.
Mr. Mica. But they weren't able to track the aircraft in a
time in which we knew where it was when it went down. Then,
when it went down, we weren't able to locate the aircraft
because is it the transponder?
What do you have there?
Ambassador Lawson. Well, as--go ahead.
Mr. Mica. What do you have there, Mr. Hart?
Mr. Hart. This is the cockpit voice recorder. But is pretty
much the same----
Mr. Mica. Is that what pings?
Mr. Hart [continuing]. As the flight data recorder, and,
yes, that is what pings underwater.
Mr. Mica. OK. But we didn't know where it went down and we
couldn't locate it; it wasn't either operational or it didn't
operate long enough.
Ambassador Lawson. And it is precisely because we don't
know exactly what went wrong that we are not prescribing
specific fixes.
Mr. Mica. Again, I have to go back. We are stuck with all
of us have to go back and say when will there be some action by
ICAO to institute something. I heard some different dates.
First I heard a date of later November this year, then November
2016. I heard another date of March. What is going to take
place when as far as some standards?
Ambassador Lawson. What is happening this week is that ICAO
is sending out to its member States the proposal with respect
to----
Mr. Mica. That is this?
Ambassador Lawson. Yes. With respect to the performance-
based standards that we want to have implemented. That is going
out this week. We expect comments back from the member States
and we are scheduled to take this up at the council level to
make this formal in November of this year.
Mr. Mica. Not until November.
Ambassador Lawson. Not until November of this year. We have
to get responses back. But, in the meantime, we are not waiting
on the formal responses to start an initiative to test out what
will work and what doesn't work. It is not just the technology;
it is how the technology is integrated with the processes that
we have in place, and we are setting up an initiative in Asia
that is going to be started late summer. FAA is going to be
involved.
Mr. Mica. So we will be well into 2016 before that?
Ambassador Lawson. Into 2015. Late summer 2015.
Mr. Mica. But well into 2016 by the time the standard is
adopted.
Ambassador Lawson. No. November 2015 is when we propose to
adopt the standard.
Mr. Mica. OK. OK, I am sorry.
Ambassador Lawson. Yes.
Mr. Mica. I kept hearing 2016.
Ambassador Lawson. I understand your confusion, because
this is like light speed.
Mr. Mica. OK. And, again, you said we are moving a lot
faster than they have previously. Well, that is good. OK, well,
that was my major question for you.
Mr. Hart. May I add a point to that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Yes. In fact, O was going to ask you again not
only this short-term solution. We heard about data streaming as
another solution and global position satellites, which are
soon, I guess, with Arion, 2017 will be in place.
Mr. Hart, could you tell us where we are there?
Mr. Hart. Well, as Ambassador Lawson noted that we don't
know why we stopped being able to see where that airplane was,
and that is part of the reason why our recommendations included
exploring ways to make the systems tamper-proof, because we
don't know whether they failed or were turned off
intentionally. But that is why we have our recommendation.
Mr. Mica. So we don't know if it was a terrorist act; we
don't know if it was mechanical failure; we don't know natural
disaster due to storm or something like that. We really don't
know.
Mr. Hart. That is correct.
Mr. Mica. And you told me, I think, the other day when I
visited, the long-term solution for identifying where an
aircraft is in the global network. And I believe Arion is
about, let's see, Iridium was going to launch these satellites
and now Arion has 81 of them going up, and they should be
launched globally, 81 of them, I believe, in 2017. And that
would solve part of the problem?
Mr. Hart. That would aim at the tracking problem. We also
would like to get more data so that, if we lose an airplane
underwater, we don't have to go underwater to find out what
went wrong. So it is several aspects.
Mr. Mica. One of the problems we have is that usually the
pinging device goes out after 30 days. Are you recommending
that that be changed so we would have a longer period to search
for these aircraft?
Mr. Hart. Yes. We included recommendations not only to
increase the time from 30 days to 90 days, but also to change
the frequency to a frequency that can be tracked for a much
greater distance than this pinger.
Mr. Mica. And data streaming, are there existing tracking
capabilities over sea and land to have data streaming work now
or does that rely on a global network, satellite network?
Mr. Hart. Sort of all of the above. The ability to track is
very good if you can't turn it off. That was our problem with
MH370, we lost the signal and we don't know why. So that is one
of the challenges, is, was it turned off intentionally.
Mr. Mica. OK. Well, that is interesting. But you could make
changes to the equipment, I know nothing about the technology,
that would not allow it to be disarmed or disabled?
Mr. Hart. Our recommendations have asked for the FAA to
explore ways to make those systems tamper-proof, that is
correct.
Mr. Mica. OK. OK. And you have a total membership in IATA
of about 84 percent of the airlines globally, is that correct?
Mr. Hiatt. Pretty close, yes, 250 members.
Mr. Mica. Now, Malaysia Air was obviously a member.
Mr. Hiatt. Correct.
Mr. Mica. So I can't say that the problem is just among the
16 percent, because here we have an example of a sophisticated
aircraft, a member of the highest level operation I would
consider your membership of airline operators, and we still
have a problem. The only other thing is I understand there is
some dispute about the size of the aircraft, the number of
passengers. Was the proposal at 16 or something?
Ambassador Lawson. The proposal that ICAO is setting forth
is that these rules would apply to any aircraft with more than
19 passengers.
Mr. Mica. Nineteen passengers. OK, very good. Well, most
informative. Thank you all.
Let me turn now to our ranking member, Ms. Duckworth.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So I know just enough about this issue to be of danger to
myself and others, and I am getting a little bit confused.
Mr. Hiatt, could you just address the different issues of,
just very briefly, the different transponders? You know, we are
talking about here in the U.S. we are going to 80 SB. I
understand what you are saying about there is no need to spend
more money on equipment if you already have something that is
capable of doing it or that is redundant. I own a 1959 Piper
Comanche that my husband and I bought. We paid more for our
2006 F-150 than we did for the airplane, just to give folks an
idea of how old this aircraft is.
And it was, when we bought it, it was fully, fully, I mean,
it was a sweet, sweet panel for 1972. It had LORAN and all that
good stuff, but there is still equipment in there. My six-pack
is still perfectly good. I don't need to upgrade that into a
glass cockpit; it works just fine. We did just now invest in
ADS-B Out in our nav com.
I guess what I am trying to ask you is all of your
membership have some form, right, of ADS-B Out, an extended
squidder or 1090ES, or something along those lines, is that not
correct?
Mr. Hiatt. Your analogy with your aircraft is very
accurate, especially when you talk about LORAN. I learned on
LORAN; but we are dating ourselves. Anyway, to go back to your
question, your assumption is that, yes, all of our carriers do
have a transponder. There are updated transponders that are now
coming into effect. Not to get too technical, but they will
allow the ADS-B, ADS-C, which is contract information out.
Now, not all airlines have the same equipment and the
availabilities worldwide. If we think about in the United
States, it is very sophisticated. But when you get into other
regions of the world, it is not quite as sophisticated, and
those airlines have adapted their operation to the region that
they are in, so it dictates what type of equipment they would
have onboard.
Ms. Duckworth. So there would actually conceivably be
airlines, say throughout the Pacific Islands or throughout
Asia, that don't have a 1090ES or some level of a squidding
position reporting system?
Mr. Hiatt. Potentially, yes. But most of them all have the
transponder. But there is the transponder with the 1096
squidding availability that will be put into place that will
allow you to take advantage of the ADS-C, ADS-B type operation.
Ms. Duckworth. Is your organization supportive or are you
taking a wait and see or are you opposed to ICAO saying that we
should have that squidding capability in all aircraft that are
carrying passengers in international airspace?
Mr. Hiatt. What IATA is in favor of and is very strongly
for our airline members is a performance-based approach, as the
Ambassador had said, and that performance-based approach will
allow us to develop what is the best in technology and utilize
several different technologies. You know, we are talking about
ADS-B, ADS-C. We also have other technology that is available,
and what we want to do is make sure that there isn't a
regulation that might come out that would specify exactly what
you need, because you may be able to take advantage of better
technology along the way.
Ms. Duckworth. Oh, I absolutely agree with you on that. But
I think I am speaking to a capability here.
Mr. Ambassador, would it not make sense to have a
performance-based standard that says that all aircraft that
carry passengers, especially in international airspace, over
international waters, as in the case of Malaysian Airlines,
have some sort of system, whatever that technology is, that is
capable of squidding or extending squidding, which is sending
out bursts of position data continuously, without having the
aircraft to be interrogated by radar first?
Ambassador Lawson. That is exactly what we are proposing.
The specific terms that you are using are not in the document
that has gone out this week, but that is the concept; that you
figure out what kind of technology you have, what kind of
technology is available, and we coordinate the processes with
the air navigation service providers and others, search and
rescue, so on and so forth, so that we all know how to work
these things together. But that is exactly the process that we
are embarking on at this point in time, that is exactly right.
Ms. Duckworth. And I don't know who would answer this,
whether Mr. Hiatt or the Ambassador. With military aircraft
that would be launched or sent out there, you know, radar
basically tells you where to go. Say you are trying to
intercept an aircraft, for example, a non-responsive aircraft
or something, and you are sending military aircraft.
In the U.S., radar would tell you where to go to find these
guys, but if you are over international waters out there where
you are in, I mean, none of it is uncontrolled, but do they
have the capability of receiving the data in some of these
aircraft in the military so that they can go find an
unresponsive aircraft or an aircraft that is gone missing, as
in the case of Malaysian Airlines?
Ambassador Lawson. You are talking about a level of
analysis that we are not at yet. Right now we are talking about
getting everybody on the same page in terms of normal tracking
and abnormal tracking, and you are talking about distress
tracking at that point.
We are working on all three of these levels, and, again,
this is a performance-based standard that we are trying to use
and we are going to utilize every, or as the Ambassador to the
U.S. mission, I will do what I can to push ICAO to utilize all
of these technologies and make sure that we don't leave any
space uncontrolled, if you will. Not controlled, but that we
identify the various possibilities that you have identified and
say what would we do in this situation, what would we do in
that situation. The first such initiative, the first such test
will take place in the summer of this year in Asia. The FAA
will be involved. We are going to involve IATA, NTSB. We are
going to make sure that everybody who would have a hand in an
actual situation has a hand in figuring out what the procedures
should be. So the questions that you ask are the questions that
are going to be asked, and hopefully we will get some answers.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. You have been very generous.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. DeSaulnier, the gentleman from California, you are
recognized.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am slightly more
dangerous, I suppose, than the ranking member, or maybe more,
because I know really nothing about this other than the fact
that I am flying a lot more often, so I am more concerned about
this issue coming back and forth from the San Francisco Bay
area most every weekend.
Mr. Hart, nice to see you again.
Mr. Hart. Thank you. The pleasure is mine.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, it is mutual. Maybe it is like Claude
Rains and Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca; I hope this is the
beginning of a beautiful friendship.
So as someone who is not familiar with the technology, but
is from an area that prides itself on new innovation, it seems
to a layperson that it is sort of hard to believe that we don't
have more refined technology. In January you mentioned that it
really shouldn't be, if I am reading the question properly, to
obtain critical flight data faster, you really shouldn't have
the need for immediate underwater retrieval.
So this is directed at you, but if either of the other
panelists want to chime in. So are there constant technological
improvements? Have these crashes, including the 2009 Air France
Flight 447 crash, has this started to encourage or incentivize
new technologies and how close are we? You have mentioned near-
term, medium-term, long-term. Maybe a little more specific as
to how we get to the long-term as quickly as possible so you
don't have to spend all these resources trying to actually get
the box back.
Mr. Hart. Thank you for the question. New technologies are
developing rapidly. The issue, as you have already heard
several times today, is the implementation internationally,
because not only does it need to be approved by the regulators
in the significant countries, but then they have to harmonize
that so that the borders are transparent. So the challenge is
getting 191 countries to agree to where to take this, and that
is one of the reasons that we stress performance-based, because
there are so many different scenarios depending on the
situation.
Mr. Hiatt. I will just add, Congressman, that the industry
is very onboard with looking at streaming data. We do
recognize, though, that the automatic deployable flight
recorder will go into effect, but we also feel that the
technology is moving so fast that it will help the NTSB and in
accident investigation to have that streaming data.
Mr. DeSaulnier. And just incentivizing from the private
sector's perspective, are there liability issues? I mean,
obviously, there is good will and the confidence of the flying
public, but are there other things that are impelling more R&D
to make the technology be deployable faster, or is it mostly
just getting multiple jurisdictions and countries to agree to
the technology, as you just Stated? Mr. Hart?
Mr. Hart. It is some of all of the above, because the
incentives, ultimately the incentives are that, as the
technologies advance, they are going to help the airlines be
able to operate more efficiently through continuous knowledge
back and forth. That is going to be, ultimately, a very strong
incentive. But certainly getting everybody to agree is a major,
major challenge.
Mr. DeSaulnier. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Welcome and recognize Mr. Price. Mr. Price, Ms. Duckworth
put your full Statement in the record, but you are recognized
for questions.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the chance
to sit in on this hearing today on a matter of long-term
interest for myself and Mr. Duncan.
I want to congratulate Ms. Duckworth on her assuming the
leadership role she has and also, of course, welcome her back
to the Congress.
I do appreciate your hospitality here today and the chance
to ask a couple questions. I know my full Statement was
submitted in the record. This Statement reflects work that
Representative Duncan and I have done for many years, and the
two bills that address flight tracking and data recovery, the
SAFE Act, which would require the use of deployable recorders,
and the SAFE-T Act, which would much more broadly require FAA
to take a close look at all the technologies on the table and
develop domestic requirements in line with international
standards.
Ambassador, I understand, before I arrived, you talked
about the unaccustomed speed with which ICAO was acting on this
matter to act post-Malaysia 370, but I do have to note that
this is not a new matter in this body, and the discussions have
been going on for years, including discussions in your
organization.
At least since Air France 417 these discussions have been
going on. Representative Duncan and I have introduced these
bills multiple times; we have had report language in
appropriations bills, most recently 2014, then again in the
current year, encouraging the FAA to consider the costs and
benefits of deployable recorder technology to work with the
NTSB to support U.S. and international initiatives in this
area.
So this isn't new, but fortunately it does seem to be
reaching a heightened level of attention, so hopefully we can
sort through the different proposals and do something that
actually makes a difference in something that does seem, to the
layman, I think, seems just obsolete that we cannot deal with
these aircraft that go down, that we never find in some cases,
or in any case have these expensive, heart-wrenching searches
that, surely, given the technology we have and have actually
deployed on some of our military aircraft, surely this isn't
necessary.
Now, I am pleased to see that ICAO's tracking
recommendations are coming in conjunction with or viewed as a
complement, let's say, to automatic deployable flight
recorders. That is a proven technology. I understand that you
are currently moving forward to make the use of the deployable
flight recorders a recommended practice. Is that accurate? And
the timetable you gave earlier, does that apply to this
recommendation in particular?
Ambassador Lawson. The recommendation that we have on the
table is performance-based. Deployable flight recorders is a
possible solution that would meet that standard. Currently, the
letter that has gone out does not specify any particular type
of technology, but that is clearly part of the technology that
we would expect to be implemented.
Mr. Price. All right, that leads me to our other two
witnesses, and since I have limited time, let me just explore
this a little further with them, the complementarity of these
systems.
Mr. Hiatt, you actually Stated that deployable recorders
would be redundant for airlines that planned to implement real-
time data streaming. I wonder about that. Could you clarify?
Are airlines that use real-time data streaming transmitting
exactly the same number of flight data and cockpit voice
parameters that a standard or deployable black box is required
to record for accident investigations? What happened to
triggered data or real-time streaming if onboard satellite
equipment suddenly loses power or if the aircraft loses its
lock on the satellite?
And then, Mr. Hart, of all the technologies being
discussed, which ones work after the crash has occurred:
automatic distress tracking systems, real-time data streaming,
deployable recorders? Clearly, that is available after the
crash has occurred; it ejects on impact, it is right there.
Does equipping aircraft with automatic tracking capability
guaranty that it will provide the actual position of the
aircraft after it goes down?
You see what I am getting at? What are the distinctive
features and distinctive strengths of these different
technologies? Are they, in fact, redundant and, in particular,
what are the capabilities of the deployable recorders. That is
obviously what I am getting at. And I would appreciate both of
you responding.
Mr. Hart. The specific recommendation that we made
regarding finding aircraft that have crashed is that they, when
in distress, are doing something that makes it possible to
locate them within six miles after they crash. There are so
many ways to do that. We didn't specify specifically a way to
do it, we just said we want to be able to find the aircraft
within six miles of where it crashed so that we are not
searching the entire Indian Ocean.
Mr. Hiatt. On the equipment and, as you would say, the
redundancy, it would actually be duplicative in terms of the
fact that we already know that the flight data recorder and the
cockpit voice recorder will remain on the aircraft. What we are
looking at is the technology to harvest that information sooner
in order to be able to analyze what happened in the particular
event.
Now, as far as locating the aircraft, streaming data is a
byproduct of tracking and could be utilized by the airline
itself.
Mr. Price. That is the point, though, isn't it? Yes, the
recorder is there, but the recorder is at the bottom of the
sea.
Mr. Hiatt. So, with the streaming data, it already starts
to point to what has taken place while the recorders are being
recovered. If you go back and look at the history on the Air
France 447 accident, there was a lot of information that was
harvested within the last, really, 20 minutes of that flight
that helped to find out where that aircraft was while,
unfortunately, the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice
recorder were still trying to be located.
Mr. Price. Yes. And what I am asking you is are these kinds
of data, the kind of streaming data you are describing and the
data that would hypothetical be available had the black box
ejected and floated, are those literally redundant?
Mr. Hiatt. It would depend upon the parameters that we are
actually required to provide to the authority, such as, in this
case, the FAA, as far as the number of parameters that we would
have tracked on the aircraft, which then goes back to the NTSB
or the investigative authority as to the usefulness of the
data. There are certain amount of parameters. We have
progressed over many years, as you well know, with going from
basically 10 parameters that you are looking at a tin disk now
to volatile data and all the other things that can be
harvested. So there are the basics and then there are those in
addition to.
Mr. Price. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know my time
has expired. The bills that Mr. Duncan and I have put forward
certainly anticipate and would promote the consideration of
this full range of techniques and gathering methods. But I
think we also obviously are motivated by a conviction that the
proven technology that would instantly provide location of a
downed aircraft, there is a certain burden of proof on those
who would say they could replicate that or render it redundant.
Yes, sir?
Ambassador Lawson. I just wanted to say that these are
specifically the types of questions and concerns that I will
bring back to ICAO through our mission as we progress through
our initiative and see what works and the procedures that will
be in place. These are exactly the types of questions we are
going to make sure that we get some answers to.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Price, just a question, if you would yield.
Your proposed legislation you and Mr. Duncan put together
really is triggered by ICAO, isn't it, by ICAO action?
Mr. Price. The short answer is yes.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Mr. Price. We have had these concerns for a long time. The
National Transportation Safety Board in our own Country, for
years, has had this under advisement, has explored this. But,
yes----
Mr. Mica. But you still had to wait for them to----
Mr. Price [continuing]. We are latching on to the ICAO
process, yes, that is true.
Mr. Mica. And one of my concerns is I was trying to get the
timeframe, and even if we get to November and they adopt it, I
saw this document that came from the ad-hoc working group from
ICAO, and it says how long would it take for States, that would
be the countries, and industries to implement this proposal.
And then the chart says there are two to 5 years. That is just
aircraft tracking. And more than 10 years for ADT and ADFR.
Is that accurate? I guess that is their estimate. So even
if we are adopt it at the end of the year 2016, we are looking
at two to 5 years, 18 onto 20, 2023 or something before this is
implemented.
Ambassador Lawson. That is the current timetable that is in
this document. We are at the beginning of this stage. We are at
the beginning of the process.
Mr. Mica. So, Mr. Price, we still have a long way to go.
Mr. Price. Well, let me just, in response to the way you
put the question, though, our legislation does not depend on
ICAO action; it is action that our Country would take. And we
have urged repeatedly our own FAA to move forward in
considering this. But, yes, we do anticipate conformity to ICAO
standards.
Mr. Mica. Well, the other thing, too, is, OK, we have I
guess they are all corporate members of your organization,
IATA, and you have 250 members. What is your current standard?
Because you don't have to deal with the cumbersome process of
implementing, and you had a member, Malaysia Air, who obviously
didn't have functioning equipment. We don't know what the
reason was, whether it wasn't operable or was made inoperable.
What is your current standard? Can't you implement something
right away, or have you, and what is your current standard?
Mr. Hiatt. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony,
Congressman, we have the IOSA registry, which is a standard
that every one of our 250 members has to abide by.
Mr. Mica. Now, is that before March of last year?
Mr. Hiatt. Oh, yes.
Mr. Mica. So they weren't complying? Then Malaysia Air
wasn't complying, or we don't know if they were complying?
Mr. Hiatt. We can't say whether Malaysia Air was in
``standard compliance'' or not because we really don't know
exactly what happened.
Mr. Mica. Do you have any enforcement capability?
Mr. Hiatt. The only enforcement capability really is the
fact that their name or their organization, if they don't make
the standard through their biannual audits, would be removed
from the registry, which also then results in them being
removed as a member of IATA.
Mr. Mica. And we would have the capability of passing a law
that mandates that FAA require this on any domestic aircraft or
any carrier coming into the United States. I think we would
have that capability.
Mr. Price, Ms. Duckworth, wouldn't you think?
Ms. Duckworth. Yes.
Mr. Mica. So maybe that might be a motivator.
We have aircraft now flying in from your organization that
are in non-compliance? I said almost all the aircraft had the
technical capability of compliance, and you agreed to that.
Mr. Hiatt. That is correct.
Mr. Mica. OK. Are you aware of any that are coming in that
belong to your organization that don't have that capability?
Mr. Hiatt. No, because----
Mr. Mica. So if Mr. Price, Ms. Duckworth, and I, we
introduce our bill that requires that any aircraft that comes
into our domestic flight operations area have this equipment,
that it be operable, and that it have certain requirements,
performance, you wanted performance, you don't have a problem
with that.
Mr. Hiatt. Well, I am not sure if I have a--when you say a
problem with that, I am sure my members would definitely raise
their eyebrows on it.
Mr. Mica. It might be coming. You might alert them, because
when you go back now, and I love cooperating with ICAO trying
to get this, they have 191 countries to deal with, all of them
at different levels with different agendas, but we have an
obligation to the American public. We are representing the
United States.
We also put 25 percent in the paying for ICAO, and we need
some certainty that aircraft--and usually we set the standard,
and by the standard we set the rest of the world usually
complies or they sure as hell ain't gonna fly in. I mean, we
went through this with the European Union's mission trading
scheme. They impose on us, when we get to their border, or they
wanted to impose from our airport to their landing cite in the
EU certain restrictions and requirements. We sure as heck can
require standards for those flying into the United States if
they want that, right, Mr. Hart? You don't have to approve the
proposal, but you would confirm that we have that ability.
Mr. Hart. I believe we have that ability, I am not sure.
But the problem is not in the U.S.; the problem is elsewhere in
remote locations. That is where the problem occurs.
Mr. Mica. That is true, but, again, we would set a standard
for which we would hope the others would comply. And, again, we
can't assure everything in the world. We are trying to work
with our Ambassador; he is trying to work with those 191
countries. But, again, we are looking at November, then we are
looking at two to 5 years. I am trying to speed the thing up.
He is doing the best he can.
The other thing, too, is we haven't passed a resolution
from the House or Congress, and I am not sure if that would
help any. I know we sent letters up to ICAO; we have met with
the president of ICAO and he is cooperating. But what we are
trying to do is get this in place as soon as possible.
It is always good to have some institutional knowledge, but
to hear Mr. Price and Mr. Duncan, well, we have been working on
this for years. They are ahead of the curve, but we are not
getting to the----
Mr. Price. That is right, Mr. Chairman, and we have had,
for years, referenced the interest in ICAO and whoever else was
working on this, but we have always anticipated that our
Country should lead, our Country should set the standard.
Mr. Mica. I might say, and I will tell you today I may look
at some legislation to move this forward, even if it is only
for setting a U.S. standard. We have always been the leader. We
need to maintain that leadership role. We also need to help set
the standard for the rest of the world. And there will be
Americans flying on some of those planes around the globe. We
can't guaranty all this in place instantly, but I think we can
motivate and initiate action that will light a fire. Sometimes
you have to do that.
So that is the end of my questions.
Madam Ranking Member, you are recognized.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I
represent a district of manufacturers and small business
owners, and I find, oftentimes, that industry can react far
faster than governments can, and sometimes government does need
to get out of industry's way and allow them to implement things
that are going to be good for the industry and good for their
customers, as well.
With that, Mr. Hiatt, I just want to give you an
opportunity to talk about your aircraft tracking task force and
the near-term aircraft tracking recommendations that your
organization is saying should be implemented even before the
new ICAO recommendations can be put into place. So can you talk
a little bit about some of those recommendations coming out of
the task force?
Mr. Hiatt. Sure, Congresswoman. We took a very detailed
look at all of the options that were available in technology;
there were over 27 submissions from different manufacturers in
different areas of the world to tell us what they could do to
track an aircraft.
What we looked at in that sense was the fact of how soon
any of these could be implemented, and it really got down to
about literally five or six things that we could do as an
industry right away with the aircraft and the existing
equipage, as you went back and we were talking about the
transponders and the squidder.
But it could be, as I would say, and please excuse this
word, primitive as nothing more than a VHF or an HF voice
communication to let the controlling entity know where you are.
Now, the controlling entity be either the airline or the air
navigation service provider.
Now, technologically speaking, is that advanced? It is
something that has been used for years and will continue to be
used for years; it is still being used in Africa and it is
still being used in certain places in oceanic airspace. So with
ADS-B, ADS-C, and then VHF capabilities and then other tracking
capabilities that come along with ACARS on board your aircraft,
those are the ones that our members can actually take advantage
of right now.
Ms. Duckworth. OK. Well, I understand what you are saying
about the low tech sometimes works out better. When we were
flying in Iraq, in fact, the U.S. Army was using Blue Force
tracker, which is GPS-based, which never worked in that thing,
which is a dead computer taking up space in my aircraft; and we
in fact used HF to communicate with each other all throughout
the country and something that has been around for a long time.
So I understand.
Ambassador Lawson, you have a thankless task. You are
hurting cats over there and I understand the challenges that
you are facing. I guess what I want to know is what can we do
to be helpful to you, as you represent the United States in
ICAO, to help you help push these standards further along, and
what can we do here as Members of Congress to assist you in the
work that you are trying to do?
Ambassador Lawson. Thank you for the question and thank you
for the offer. This opportunity to express your concerns goes a
long way. The United States is one vote on a 36-member council,
but our influence is greater than that; and to be able to go
back and tell other members of the council, tell the president
of the council, the secretary general that the intense interest
of this Congress, of this committee, of your voices as to what
needs to be done and what needs to be done quickly will go a
long way.
I am somewhat concerned about the possibility of kind of
the Balkanization of different rules that go beyond what ICAO
requires in terms of international airspace. The United States
has complete control over its own airspace and we should
continue to do that and we will not relinquish that, but what
we are talking about is, as Mr. Hiatt said, flights over
oceanic areas, over remote areas, this is where the danger
occurs; and we are concerned about U.S. passengers who are
flying on non-U.S. airlines.
And ICAO has done a remarkable job over the years of
focusing on its primary goal, the safety and security of
worldwide civil aviation, and it has done a remarkable job at
that. It is plodding at times; it is frustrating at times, and
hurting cats is a great analogy. But make no mistake, your
voices are heard and I will make sure that your voices are
heard throughout the halls of ICAO, and that is a very good
help to me.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Just finally, Mr. Hart, as I craft this
legislation to move forward, let me ask you a question. First,
you don't want to do things that impose hardship on industry.
One, equipment already exists with the transponder. Part of the
problem is keeping it on. Is there a problem or great expense
to enable a flight recorder to stay on?
Mr. Hart. Thank you for the question. The challenge is not
necessarily the expense, the challenge is that any time you
have a system that may go bad, you don't want that system's
badness to infect the rest of the airplane. So that is kind of
the challenge of making it so it can't be turned off. Yet, we
are moving in that direction because the FAA has certified,
recently, various airplane designs that do have----
Mr. Mica. So if my bill says it has to stay on, they have
to take technical capability of making it stay on without great
cost or possible issues of bad things happening.
Mr. Hart. We are on the learning curve of figuring out how
to do that, and the big challenge----
Mr. Mica. So if I give them, like, a year to comply, they
could probably deal with that.
Mr. Hart. I couldn't specify a timeframe, but we are moving
in that direction.
Mr. Mica. The other thing, too, is to get more than 30 days
pinger. I think when I was there you said that there is a
capability of making some adjustments so that most of the
existing equipment could have a longer transmitting life?
Mr. Hart. I would have to get back to you with respect to
that. I am not sure of the answer to that. I know that we can
make equipment that has 90-day capability. Whether I can take
this one and modify it to make it----
Mr. Mica. Can you give us that answer?
Mr. Hart. I would be happy to get back to you.
Mr. Mica. Again, I am not trying to impose something on
industry that would be great cost. I would imagine, again,
within a year or we give them a year and a half, whatever, to
make those changes. But I am trying to get from a technical
standpoint what can be done, and if I impose it on those flying
into the United States, their equipment, you don't want undue
hardship or not putting something in there.
Long-term, though, is really global positioning satellites
and that continuous streaming of data, and that won't be in
place for it is beyond 2017. I think their launch schedule is
2017?
Mr. Hart. That will take a while. I don't know the
specifics on the timing of that, but that will certainly take a
while, yes.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Mr. Hart. And I would be happy to get back to you with what
can be done with the existing pinger to extend its duration.
Mr. Mica. OK. OK. And then, finally, IATA, voluntarily
implementing your cooperative members, say, latest standards or
standards that would cover most of what we have talked about,
what would be the schedule for that?
Mr. Hiatt. The current standards that we are talking about
coming out of ICAO at the moment?
Mr. Mica. No, anything you could do to implement higher
standards.
Mr. Hiatt. Well, we are encouraging our members now that if
they have equipment that is able to track aircraft, that they
use it that way.
Mr. Mica. You are just sending out suggestive memos?
Mr. Hiatt. It is coming through our committees, that we put
that information out to the----
Mr. Mica. With the capability for membership to meet
certain standards?
Mr. Hiatt. Well, they have to meet certain standards
through the IOSA registry, as I mentioned.
Mr. Mica. Right.
Mr. Hiatt. Now, we have certain standards in the IOSA
registry about flight following, but not flight tracking. So as
we see----
Mr. Mica. Do you intend to adopt any measures?
Mr. Hiatt. As we see what comes from ICAO----
Mr. Mica. So you are going to wait on ICAO.
Mr. Hiatt. Well, it has to act in----
Mr. Mica. I have to take my bill to do something.
Mr. Hiatt. Let me make one point. I know you want to get
your bill in, and I understand that the urgency is there, but I
will say that we operate over 100,000 flights a day
successfully. No. 2 is we recognize that the leaders in the
world, such as the United States, have great technology, and
they will obviously require more. But we have members from all
over the world, and what we do want to avoid is making sure
that I don't have five or six or seven different black boxes
that are regulated by different entities all over the world.
Mr. Mica. No. And I don't want to do that. But right now we
do have one of your members who was flying an aircraft, it will
be a year ago next week. We don't know where it is; we don't
know where 239 people are. It wasn't a second-rate aircraft or
equipage. But something happened to deny us knowing where it is
or being able to locate it, and this is 1 year later.
I heard Ms. Duckworth, she also, in her own way, said I
can't imagine being a family member. It is bad enough for
industry, but for people to not know what happened. We should
know, and every aircraft that carries that many people--I know
the rule deals with 19, but passenger aircraft, again--and we
can't, maybe, rule the world, we don't intend to, but we have
some leverage over what comes in and out of the United States,
and also the obligation to set the very best standards. So we
will look at that.
I will wait to hear back from Mr. Hart as we craft it.
Did you have something to say, Mr. Lawson?
Ambassador Lawson. I just wanted to add a note that I
applaud your approach, but it is not just technology that is
going to solve this problem; it is the procedures that are in
place with respect to the technologies that exist and that are
going to exist. So all of that needs to be coordinated.
Mr. Mica. Well, we have a voluntary private organization
and we can adopt standards. And, again, we won't know until we
see what happened with 370, but we can take steps. They can
take steps voluntarily; we can mandate where we have U.S.
jurisdiction. You have to deal in a different venue, and we
know you are doing your best.
But even with all that said, it is going to be years and
years before we have this rule and then we have the
implementation of the proposal, so we are just trying to light
a little fire both by the oversight hearing that we are
conducting, working with you, the industry, and the technical
people, because the last thing you want to do and I want to do
is impose things on industry that aren't practical or would
impose great cost, inconvenience, or duplication.
Well, I thank each and every one, especially our ranking
member. Just really pleased to have her back. Again,
congratulations.
Thank each of you for your testimony today. We will leave
the record open.
There being no further business before the subcommittee,
this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]